TOC |
|
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols such as Bundle Protocol and Licklider. The specifications of these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of its research work, the group created adhoc registries. As the specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable implementations, the group would like to handoff the registries to IANA for official custidy. This document describes the actions needed to be executed by IANA.
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as “work in progress.”
This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2010.
Copyright (c) 2010 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.
1.
Introduction
2.
Bundle Protocol
2.1.
Bundle Block Types
2.2.
Primary Bundle Protocol Version
2.3.
Bundle Processing Control Flags
2.4.
Block Processing Control Flags
2.5.
Bundle Status Report Flags
2.6.
Bundle Status Report Reason Codes
2.7.
Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes
3.
Security Considerations
4.
IANA Considerations
5.
Acknowledgements
6.
Normative References
§
Author's Address
TOC |
The DTNRG research group has defined many protocols[RFC4838] (Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst, R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, “Delay-Tolerant Networking Architecture,” April 2007.) such as Bundle Protocol[RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) and Licklider[RFC5326] (Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, “Licklider Transmission Protocol - Specification,” September 2008.). The specifications of these protocols contain fields that are subject to a registry. For the purpose of its research work, the group created adhoc registries. As the specifications are stable and have multiple interoperable implementations, the group would like to handoff the registries to IANA for official custidy. This document describes the actions needed to be executed by IANA.
TOC |
The Bundle Protocol(BP)[RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) has fields requiring a registry managed by IANA.
TOC |
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Block Type code field (section 4.5.2) (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is:
0-191: Specification Required
192-255: Private or experimental use. No assignment by IANA.
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Bundle Block Type Codes Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Reserved | This document |
1 | Bundle Payload Block | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
2-191 | Unassigned | |
192-255 | Private and/or experimental use | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
The value "0" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
TOC |
The Bundle Protocol has a version field (section 4.5.1) (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Primary Bundle Protocol Version Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0-5 | Reserved | This document |
6 | Assigned | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
7-255 | Unassigned |
The value "0-5" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
TOC |
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Processing Control flags field (section 4.2) (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length.
Bundle Processing Control Flags Registry
TOC |
The Bundle Protocol has a Block Processing Control flags field (section 4.3) (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: Variable length.
Block Processing Control Flags Registry
Bit Position (right to left) | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | Block must be replicated in every fragment | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
1 | Transmit status report if block can't be processed | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
2 | Delete bundle if block can't be processed | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
3 | Last block | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
4 | Discard block if it can't be processed | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
5 | Block was forwarded without being processed | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
6 | Block contains an EID-reference field | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
TOC |
The Bundle Protocol has a Status Report Status Flag field(section 6.1.1) (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: RFC Required
The Value range is: 8 bits.
Bundle Status Report Flags Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
00000000 | Reserved | This document |
00000001 | Reporting node received bundle | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
00000010 | Reporting node accepted custody of bundle | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
00000100 | Reporting node forwarded the bundle | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
00001000 | Reporting node delivered the bundle | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
00010000 | Reporting node deleted the bundle | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
00100000 | Unassigned | |
01000000 | Unassigned | |
10000000 | Unassigned |
The value "00000000" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
TOC |
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Status Report Reason Codes field(section 6.1.1) (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 8 bit integer.
Bundle Status Report Reason Codes Registry
The value "255" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
TOC |
The Bundle Protocol has a Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes field(section 6.1.2) (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) [RFC5050]. An IANA registry shall be setup as follows.
The registration policy for this registry is: Specification Required
The Value range is: unsigned 7 bit integer.
Bundle Custody Signal Reason Codes Registry
Value | Description | Reference |
---|---|---|
0 | No additional information | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
1-2 | Unassigned | |
3 | Redundant reception (reception by a node that is a custodial node for this bundle) | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
4 | Depleted storage | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
5 | Destination endpoint ID unintelligible | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
6 | No known route to destination from here | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
7 | No timely contact with next node on route | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
8 | Block unintelligible | [RFC5050] (Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” November 2007.) |
9-126 | Unassigned | |
127 | Reserved | This document |
The value "127" was not defined in any document or in the adhoc registry. As per concensus by the DNTRG research group, it is reserved per this document.
TOC |
This document requests the creation of registries managed by IANA. There is no security issues involved. Refer to Security Considerations of the referenced protocols.
TOC |
IANA is requested to create the registries as described in the previous sections.
TOC |
The editor would like to thank the following people who have provided comments and suggestions to this document, in no specific order: Stephen Farrell, Daniel Ellard, Scott Burleigh, Keith Scott.
TOC |
[RFC4838] | Cerf, V., Burleigh, S., Hooke, A., Torgerson, L., Durst, R., Scott, K., Fall, K., and H. Weiss, “Delay-Tolerant Networking Architecture,” RFC 4838, April 2007 (TXT). |
[RFC5050] | Scott, K. and S. Burleigh, “Bundle Protocol Specification,” RFC 5050, November 2007 (TXT). |
[RFC5326] | Ramadas, M., Burleigh, S., and S. Farrell, “Licklider Transmission Protocol - Specification,” RFC 5326, September 2008 (TXT). |
TOC |
Marc Blanchet | |
Viagenie | |
2600 boul. Laurier, suite 625 | |
Quebec, QC G1V 4W1 | |
Canada | |
Email: | Marc.Blanchet@viagenie.ca |
URI: | http://www.viagenie.ca |